Anger and sadness are certainly there, and with good reason. But the tension during some answers and not during others is there, as well. Not because he's lying, but because he's making sure not to say something he is not allowed to. The pre-rehearsed part about not claiming the attack to have been state-sponsored is a good control - the anger/sadness is there, but the tension is not.
A corporate spokesperson giving an interview on television is nothing but an exercise in avoiding saying things that are not "allowed." It could just be that the times when you see tension is that those weren't scripted questions, and he had to come up with a response on the spot. The questions where he was more relaxed could be questions they anticipated, and had already formulated answers for.
Right, I'm asking "when is he saying things close to that which is not allowed?", and "when is he saying things unrelated to what is unallowed?". For example, when he talks about the distinction between the attacks on GMail and the malware on user machines, he's very comfortable, even though he's clearly off-script. When he's talking about Google's desire to stay in China, he's downright confident.
Even if he were especially tense during those moments (and I'm not seeing it, relative to his tension throughout the interview), your interpretation is a huge stretch from a tiny piece of data. There are many alternative explanations. The moments you cite are exactly those where he's laying down google's gauntlet. He was on national TV, claiming that it is no longer possible to do business with a powerful nation because its representatives have been suppressing opponents to its totalitarian policies with highly illegal and unethical tactics. I would be pretty tense under those circumstances, too. Every person of Chinese descent I met after that, I would be wondering what they think of me.
your interpretation is a huge stretch from a tiny piece of data
Did you read the article? That's exactly why I source the NYT and Google's blog for more data - I'm not saying I read that this was a broad attack against 34 international corporations spanning nearly all major industries because they guy flinched one way or another, I'm saying I noticed him flinch (without the sounds on) on questions which happen to also be half-truths by the content of his blog post.
Yes, your argument was a non sequitur. Just because they were also apparently targeting industrial espionage, it doesn't follow that dissidents weren't "clearly targeted." Both of the Drummond quotes you highlight are completely in line with your subsequent analysis.
it doesn't follow that dissidents weren't "clearly targeted
Right. Half-truths meaning "these are not lies, yet they aren’t something Drummord is completely comfortable about, either". I'm saying his statements are true, but only a minor part of the whole picture - that this was a much bigger attack, and Chinese dissidents were a minor target.
